The BFD | A Real Case of Systemic Discrimination

Darryl Betts
darryllrbetts.wordpress.com

Darryl is a businessman and a post-graduate student in Philosophy at the University of Auckland, with particular interests in the philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, epistemology, logic, and AI. He holds a BSc in Computer Science and a BA in Philosophy, Logic and Computation.

After listening for years to woke activists claiming to have found systemic discrimination in every corner of our society, actual systemic discrimination has arrived – and, not content to take all the blame, the government is making discrimination a community activity. It’s a far more insidious and dishonest form too because it is disguised as an effort to “keep people safe”.

The Sport New Zealand home page [1] prominently displays the following:

They are very careful to avoid explicitly exposing the discrimination and exclusion hidden within. According to the web page, Sport NZ Chief Executive Raelene Castle says the following:

“We encourage everyone to work together to ensure the successful return of sport and recreation under the traffic light system”

It goes on to say:

“it will be great to see Kiwis who have waited a long time get back to their passions”

And this:

“It’s terrific to see sport returning within the safety of the CPF, so that boys and girls, mums and dads, and people from all walks of life, can get back to enjoying it on a regular basis”.

All walks of life – except me and others who stand by our right to consent to medical treatment. As if to point out the full scope of what myself and others are being denied there is this:

“The activity and exercise, the opportunity to meet and share, and, not least, the ability to get out of the house and have some fun, makes this an important time”.

Squash NZ has issued an interpretation of Ardern’s “traffic light” system to squash clubs, which includes an option that allows club play to continue for all – whether vaccinated or not. However, they have left it to clubs to decide whether to choose that option. I’m not saying I wanted Squash NZ to decide – there is only one scientifically and ethically rational choice – however, they have multiplied the damage many fold by delegating the decision to the squash clubs.

My club, Howick Squash Club in Auckland, has done what I suspect many other clubs will do which is to exclude unvaccinated players. So after 100 days in lockdown, I and others who choose to exercise our right to not have these new vaccines, are indefinitely excluded. We are excluded not just from returning to play and the regular exercise that brings, but from the active social life which goes with it and which is for many of us an important part of our lives.

I have no doubt this story will be repeated in different forms across many clubs and many sports throughout New Zealand. I have already heard such stories in relation to golf clubs, soccer clubs, and others – across all age groups.

My club did not put a vote to the members. They held an online AGM at which around 10% of the membership attended. The club president explained the Squash NZ interpretation of the traffic light rules which would allow everyone to resume playing and socialising – subject to certain limitations, if the club chose the option to not check vaccination certificates.

The president also suggested, and it seemed to be agreed, that more time and consultation would be needed before a decision could be made – probably involving a special general meeting. No formal decision was made on the checking of vaccination certificates but the president suggested that since the rules allowed it the preferred option was to not exclude anyone, and in any event, it was not practical to implement certificate checking in the time available.

Within 24 hours the committee decided behind closed doors to exclude unvaccinated players, and in an email announcing this decision said this:

“Thanks to the vast majority of the membership that support this decision and your feedback regarding the Committee’s approach.”

It is not possible for the club to have determined that the “vast majority” of members support the decision in the time available. The email went on to say this:

“Most of you realise, as the committee did, without a vaccination status the club is unable to operate on the Red and Orange levels”.

The claim that the club is unable to operate on the Red and Orange levels is false. Under the Squash NZ guidance presented to the AGM only days before, the club can continue to allow everyone to play – albeit with some limitations and inconveniences.

But according to this email, it is not possible for the club to operate without excluding myself and others, and apparently, I am one of those who do not “realise” this.

So why has the Howick Squash Club done this?

I was at the AGM and tabled a non-discrimination motion and gave a short presentation attempting to point members to the evidence that there is insufficient scientific or ethical justification for excluding unvaccinated players. I showed them the following statement from our own Ministry of Health:

“When there is high COVID-19 vaccine coverage (i.e., above 80 percent of eligible people are fully vaccinated), transmission is more likely to occur from a vaccinated than an unvaccinated individual.” [2]

After “lively” discussion, I agreed at the meeting that the motion would be deferred on the understanding that more information and more discussion was needed.

So why did the Howick Squash Club suddenly decide to choose the option to exclude unvaccinated players?

It was obvious at the meeting that irrational fear is a major factor. One of the fittest players in the club – statistically at very low risk from any ill-effect from Covid-19, and presumably vaccinated along with his loved ones – declared that he wanted to know if the person he is playing is vaccinated or not and he also wanted to know if an unvaccinated person had been in the building prior to him arriving. He was told – quite rightly – that he is not entitled to this information.

However, it was clear from the mood at the meeting that he wasn’t the only person who believed he and others are at great risk from unvaccinated players, and I had been earlier advised by the president that some members of the tennis club (which shares the same building) had already expressed concern over the possible presence of unvaccinated people.

There was also discussion about the need to “deep clean” the premises after an unvaccinated person and before allowing vaccinated players to be there. It was sickening to hear such a thing and deeply saddening to hear people I have known for decades say such things without any apparent self-awareness or concern.

The absurdity of this is beyond belief – but then again the whole Covid-19 saga has been one absurdity after another. Some attendees at the AGM became highly emotional and were unwilling to consider any evidence which countered their beliefs including pointing out a recent interview with a UK cardiologist expressing grave concerns about recent evidence of coronary and heart damage linked to the mRNA vaccines [3]. Some members became quite angry and did not even want me to complete my presentation.

After I briefly showed the following graph (derived from CDC data) to illustrate the low level of risk from Covid-19 for most people – particularly for the young, one member complained that “these are just numbers”. Unfortunately, the attendees were baying so loudly for my presentation to be shut down (only a minute or two in at that point) that I could not even ask that person what they meant by that strange comment, let alone respond to it.

Maybe they would have said that each data point is the loss of a person’s life. I would have agreed but, sadly, people die all the time for many reasons – and each data point in all the vaccine adverse events registers around the world also involves a real person – many of whom are at negligible risk from Covid-19.

Behind all of this though is the strength of the official narrative. Covid-19 is a major threat to everyone, the vaccines work, the vaccines are safe, we must all be vaccinated to keep other people safe, and the icing on the cake – anyone who tells you differently is an anti-vaxxer, a crazy conspiracy theorist, or a victim of misinformation.

There are some who say that they are undecided on this issue and take the line that “there are perspectives on both sides of this debate”.

Actually – no. Sometimes one perspective is right and the other wrong. We can each have a perspective on ice cream – you may think strawberry is better than chocolate and I may disagree. But if I say plants benefit from increased levels of carbon dioxide and you say they don’t, only one of us is correct.

In this debate there most definitely are claims that are either true or false. It is either true that unvaccinated people pose a significant threat to vaccinated people or it is not. Even our own Ministry of Health – which according to Jacinda Ardern should be our “single source of truth” – says it is not true.

Some claims are less clear cut but when a respected cardiologist points to studies that are of concern to him and his colleagues, it would be wise to exercise caution – to accept that there are legitimate scientific reasons why someone might choose not to take these vaccines at this time, and why any attempt to force or coerce people into taking them is at least unjustified and at most extremely dangerous.

But these points and others don’t seem to register for someone who has fallen deeply for the official narrative and the fear and sense of obligation it induces. So much so that they literally become angry when confronted with them. What’s more, the narrative overrides any sense of compassion or understanding they might otherwise have had to those they are excluding. They feel no embarrassment, no shame. They express no apology. In fact – it almost seems to give them pleasure.

The same email mentioned earlier also says this:

“To enforce our new system we would ask that all members of the club 12 years old or older to send to us their vaccination pass or vaccination certificate”.

Howick Squash club (and the tennis club it shares premises with) has a large contingent of junior players – it will be interesting to see how parents feel about this. But it seems our club has learned well the lessons given by our government, and one big thing missing here is transparency. The email claims (with little if any justification) that the “vast majority” of members are in agreement. There is no easy way for members – including the parents of junior members – to know how many people disagree and why. Those who disagree are being quietly excluded – our building access tags will no doubt be disabled if that hasn’t already happened.

The club then deems it necessary to warn members to be vigilant and not allow any of the unclean to access the club – because the unclean are obviously the kind of people who might try to do this:

“We ask all members to ensure the security of the club and please DO NOT allow any other persons/members to enter the club on your Tag. Any person entitled to enter will have an arrangement to enter Howick Squash which ensures their vaccination status.”

While this tactless email might be the work of one particular person, it ultimately represents the position of the committee who have made this decision, and it reflects the thinking behind this bullying and discrimination.

For those who might think this is a temporary situation which people like me are overdramatising, we are now nearly 2 years on from our “few days to flatten the curve” and the world is showing little sign of breaking out of this collective hypnosis or mass hysteria or whatever exactly this is. And the relationship damage here is profound. Nothing short of a very public apology and admission of wrongdoing would be sufficient for me to return to that club, and even then I feel like it would be very difficult for me to forgive those people who have so easily been persuaded to persecute their fellow club members.

This all reminds me of a sign I saw at the protest on Saturday which said “Everything Hitler did was legal”, and as Neil Oliver recently reminded us, “It is worth remembering that that force believed it was poised to make the word a better place.” [4]

Meanwhile, my fellow club members share their joy at resuming the sport they love.